The disabled couple already have a child, which his parents are raising. The disabled man himself says that he does not want any children. The man's parents want the man to have a vasectomy. There seems to be agreement that the couple is mentally unable to manage the intricacies of birth control.
The couples' caretakers agree that the first baby, which the couple was unable to care for, seriously damaged a beneficial relationship that all agreed was in the best interest to continue.
I can't quite figure out what has caused the issue, but I think it's because the parents aren't his legal guardians, and he's mentally unfit to make medical decisions regarding elective surgery on his own.
The judge's ruling was specifically points out the difficulty is removing a man's fertility, and it made reference to Eugenics and how this case should not be viewed as a landmark, but rather a response in dealing with a very specific case.
It sounds to me that the judge applied common sense and compassion in interpreting the law, which is commendable.
As reported in this article, but much more clearly in several others, the man in question wants a vasectomy, but due to his status as an endangered person, a mentally disabled adult, in the UK, he needed a courts permission to get one.
I don't understand the people up in arms about his own stated desire not to accidentally reproduce again. It is not a “forced sterilization”.
While I can understand that some will disapprove of mentally retarded adults engaging in sex, in the exact same way they would disapprove of any unmarried couple engaging in sex, I don't see a problem otherwise, for anybody else.
And in the UK, as in most of the western world, sex is not illegal for consenting adults, married or not, nor is birth controll.